Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Yes, Ron Paul admits to being a Libertarian, and in view of goal #15 having been nearly totally accomplished, runs as a Republican in an attempt to restore our government to one having the consent of the people.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

 

Should Ron Paul be lucky enough to make it past 'round one,' I would strongly consider voting for him. My advice for those who wish to make a difference in the GOP primaries is to change your voter registration to Republican so that you can vote for him. Of course this depends on which state you're in.

 

The problem with taking polluters to court to answer directly to property owners is that the damage is already been done and all the lawsuits in the world will not undo it.

 

While sharing your apparent concern for the environment, I suggest you
do some research (other than reading the wikipedia article) to find how the agency actually operates, i.e. how regulation is enforced, how pollution is abated, how the agency receives some of its funding, etc.

 

Perhaps some simple laws such as, "If you're found guilty of having messed it up, you will be held responsible for cleaning it up.", along with a list of known pollutents and activities which are subject to prosecution.

Laws should be clear, concise, and applicable to ALL equally and fairly.

 

Indie

LOL – I’ve tried posting one criticism, I’ve tried posting a number of criticisms, I’ve tried putting them simply and I’ve tried explaining them at length – the problem is not with producing the criticisms that’s easy because right wing libertarianism seems to be so full of holes NO the problem is evasion, with the total inability of right wing libertarians to address those criticisms, they seem unwilling or unable to do so – I mean where is Monkey Boy, where is Bob, where is YoMama and come to that where are you when it actually comes to addressing any of the criticisms?

It’s not about right and wrong (as discussed before one of your problems is this absolutist way of thinking you have) – it is about whether right wing libertarian ideology can be defended in any rational and reasonable way from its critics.

 

Indie

Oh my giddy aunts we’ve discussed this at length and you failed to defend your ideas then, this is the problem with you and other right wing libertarians you seem totally unable to address the criticisms of your ideas so you simply ignore them and continue to repeat your flawed assertions – the problem is that the criticisms don’t go away.

The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’. That is why it was originally an oligarchy, with a limited voting franchise (white men of a certain property qualification) and why slavery continued. It has been argued that the US actually didn’t become a ‘true’ modern democracy until 1965.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

I’m very much in favour of government by the people that is why I favour democracy you however DON’T like democracy arguing that people with wealth should have greater voting power so they can counter or block the votes of the many.

This would seem to make a mockery of your claim that you want to keep the influence of money out of politics.

Basically whenever looked at right wing libertarianism always seems to end up giving greater power and influence to wealth one of the criticisms of it that no right wing libertarian seems able to refute.

 

Indie

A slogan not an argument – I mean I place a high value on individual freedom but not to the detriment of the community and not to the point where one individual’s freedom curtails the freedoms of others. The thing is that no individual lives in a bubble more often than not one person’s actions affect other people.

For example one persons ‘freedom’ to pollute their own land can affect other peoples ‘freedom’ to a healthy life when the pollution seeps into the water supply.

So societies need rules, regulations and arbiters, some form of mechanism is needed to protect people, to bring in laws that while limiting some peoples ‘freedom of action’ actually increases those of others - in other world some form of government.

Often it seems that those that wish to curtail government’s ability to protect peoples freedoms actually seem to be trying to hand power to those few that have greater power and influence.

For many including myself many of the problems in US (and UK) politics the overly strong influence of wealth, the charge I and others level at the right wing libertarians is that their ideas would give wealth even more power and influence.

 

Balbie:

Somehow I have the feeling that Monkey Boy, Bob and Yomama are still waiting to learn what your criticisms are.

I'd have to know how you define the word 'absolutist' to understand what you are trying to imply. I've said before that I prefer to look at things, most especially people, on a case by case basis, and that government can not and does not, therefore much of what government does is unnecessarily wasteful, and fruitless.

I don't place Democracy as high as you seem to, and money, regardless of the form of government will ALWAYS have great influence. Even in a Democracy, money is used to purchase the politicians, who use our taxes to purchase voters. I've not yet seen how you would eliminate money from politics.

You continue to claim that "right wing liberalism", actually "right wing" anything gives greater power and influence to wealth." Actually, any form of government is going to respond more to those with wealth than those without. The only solution to that problem I know of is for the power of government to be tightly controlled and restricted as it is supposed to be by the Constitution, which enumerates the powers given by the people. When politicians using the Courts they have created are allowed to reinterpret the words of the Constitution to achieve their agenda, they do so without the consent of the governed.

A statement of fact is not a slogan. "Hope and change" That is a slogan which allows for widely different interpretations.

No one is arguing for freedom to infringe upon the freedom of another or others, although government seems to have acquired that power, without asking or receiving the consent of the people.

Yes societies do need some form of government, but in a free society governments powers should be those which the people have given their consent.

 

Thats fine, if it would actually work. Why dont you go to Niagara Falls and look at the old Love Canal site and see for yourself the results of the lawsuits filed against Hooker Chemical and how that worked to clean up the mess they made. The point is the damage that these corporations do to the environment is beyond repair and cleaning it up is impossible.

 

Indie

They only need to read the post in this thread as do you, as I’ve pointed out before just ignoring criticisms does not mean they go away.

We’ve been through that before (many times) to repeat a reply to this same point from November 2011 - “But I’m not against a case by case basis and virtually all the places where there is a state welfare and benefits system it is based on individual need”

I know, you seem to think wealth should have control (plutocracy), but you also seem to want to disguise that viewpoint behind claims that you want to help ‘the people’. Why is that?

So your solution to that problem is just to allow wealth to have control?

As we have discussed many times - to repeat something I said in February 2011 “Good governance is about balance, for example in a moneyed economy if the democratic element is working properly it should balance the influence of wealth. We’ve been through this at length indie, why not just address things rather than repeating stuff you know we have already been through?”

And again your solution seems to be to give control to wealth, as you go on to explain -

But we have been through at length it would seem that your interpretation of the US Constitution would at the very least perpetuate the dominance of wealth in US politics and more probably increase it -

The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’. That is why it was originally an oligarchy, with a limited voting franchise (white men of a certain property qualification) and why slavery continued. It has been argued that the US actually didn’t become a ‘true’ modern democracy until 1965.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

But is it a fact that you place a higher value on individual freedom than anyone else? As I’ve said I’m not sure if you do and you don’t seem able to defend your ideas against the charge that they would infringe upon the freedom of others.

But which ‘people’ are you talking about, I mean you still don’t seem able to defend your ideas against the charge that they would give more power and influence to a few rather than the many.

 

Ah! Major stipulation! Well, getting that to happen would require yet another major revolution. Any time you suggest that our justice system be blind to class, which implies first-class public defenders, the conservatives will cry "Socialism!"

So, you have failed to convince me that environmental protection would continue in any real way under Libertarianism.

 

That's part of the story, and when Hooker reluctantly sold the property to the school board for $1, it did so citing the safety concerns physically displaying the toxic waste below the surface. I'll bet you're a proponent of the electric cars.

 

Balbie:

I've responded to what you call criticisms, "things which do not suit you", to my total satisfaction, and you've yet to post anything new that I feel requires a response.

I have one simple question, and that is "who does a society belong to?"

 

In my opinion, the greatest problem we are creating today is how are future generations going to pay for the government created debt we will have left them responsible for? What was it that Margaret Thatcher said about socialism?

 

Unlike you and many others on the Left, I have nothing against Socialism on a small scale. It works fine when all those who live under it do so with their consent. The problem with Socialism on a large scale is that it denies those who live under it without their consent anywhere to escape from it. That is why I previously mentioned the Fed, 16th and 17th amendments as the major sources of allowing the Federal government to assume power from both the States and the people, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to agree somewhat.

Don't presume that I'm trying to convince you of anything, as I clearly see that our views are diametrically opposite.

 

No one has come close to convincing me that the environment wouldn't be trashed under Libertarianism.

 

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America

 

Although I'm at the opposite end of lifes cycle from you, I agree, and if you and future generations are to have any opportunities at all in life, government, more than the people needs to be governed once again by the people. Neither parties establishment candidate will do more than continue along the same path toward economic destruction and social chaos.

 

Indie

Oh you are a real hoot – I note the wording – “to my total satisfaction” – that means any reply you’ve given can be seen by you as ‘satisfactory’ even if it’s totally irrational, unreasonable or unintelligible.

I mean you could go ‘dibble dobble do’ and claim it a satisfactory response.

Fact is you use this trick, this con at least once in any thread you post in and I’ll point out AGAIN that you never ever have been able to actually produce evidence of you giving a reasonable or rational defence of your views – go on prove me wrong and produce one - go on please. I mean if you could you would the fact that you never have speaks volumes.

I read your posts, I know what you have posted that’s why I can always quote you directly if I wish or point out what you said and where – you can’t con me.